Cormyr and the Dalelands

I got my Players handbook for 5th Edition last night, and blazed through most of it in a night.  For those on the fence, I want to share some initial thoughts:


PROS

- Most of what 4E introduced is gone.  No powers, At-Will, Dailies, or any of that.  It's like they are pretending 4E didn't exist; this is an evolution from 2E and 3/3.5E.
- Gnomes are a base race again!  Along with Dragonborn and Tieflings still from last edition.
- Racial bonuses are really distinct and powerful this time around.  Except humans, who get +1 to every attribute...powerful, but kind of boring mechanically.  Halflings are almost overpowered as they can reroll any fumble!
- All the 3E classes are back, so yes Monks, Druids, etc are in the base book.  Warlocks are a base class now, like in 4E.
- Classes have "paths" or "archetypes" now, similar to how clerics can pick domains and wizards can pick spell schools.  These replace prestige classes in most cases...fighters can become Eldrich knights, rogues can become assassins, etc.
- With the new paths/archetypes, feats are now optional, but each feat is powerful and does several things.
- Dual weilding is really easy now.  Just use two light weapons.  Done.  No need to heavilly invest, no big penalties.
- Paladins are more interesting than they have ever been.  There are no more class alignment restrictions, but paladins must choose an Oath (Courage, Devotion, Ancient, or Vengeance), and each oath has different tenants you must follow to not "fall".  Each oath also gets different spells.
- Backgrounds are much more important, think of them like minor classes that give some extra gear or proficiencies based on your character history (Hermit, Soldier, Criminal, Noble, etc.)
- The Bard is amazing, and the Rogue is a damage MONSTER.  All the classes feel much more unique than in 3E/3.5E...except maybe the ranger.
- Wizard spell schools now offer several unique abilities not tied to spells, making them much more distinct.  A Necromancer feels different than an Illusionist now.
- The 3.5E spell system is back, but more flexible.  No metamagic, you can cast any known spell from a higher slot now on-the-fly to increase it's power. You can also cast any spell as a "ritual", greatly increasing cast time but making it not burn a spell slot.
- There is a huge focus on RP now.  You must choose an Ideal for your character, and a Bond (a person, place, or situation they have affinity with).  When a DM feels you are roleplaying your Ideal or Bond well, you can get an inspiration point to spend for temporary bonuses.


CONS

- The 4E reboot of Tieflings is apparently here to stay.  They are a distinct race and still look like full freaking fiends and are simply "mistrusted".  It's dumb, it was dumb in 4E and it's still dumb now.
- The Ranger class comes off a bit less distinct than the other classes, lacking a specific niche.
- Druids have lost their animal companion.  On the one hand this is to focus more on wild shape (druids are more powerful by themselves now), but this will still disappoint a lot of druid fans.
- The Warlock is a little inelegantly designed and overly-complicated, having both spells and incantations as separate things, and picking a patron (Archfey, Fiend, or Old One), AND a boon type...it's just all over the place.  At least they do more than spam eldrich blast now.
- The iconic Elf is Drizzit.  I'm so sorry, elf fans.


PRO/CON

- There is a lot of combat/equipment rule simplification across the board.  This depends on your tastes.  It makes things faster but is a little less detailed.
- Saving throws are stats now.  (Dex save, Constitution save, etc.)
- Base attack tables are gone, everyone follows the same "proficiency" progression now for attack bonuses.
- HP has a higher floor now (Rogues are d8, Wizards are d6).  Barbarians still have the most at d12.  I like this, but some people might have preferred Wizards to be so fragile.
- The overall power curve is much less steep.  A level 5 character is not as dramatically less powerful than a level 10, now.  Some people will like this and some won't.



I look forward to running a few games in the coming weeks.  4E is dead!  5E has given us DnD back! (Even if it might not be everyone's favorite edition.)

The bit thats got me most excited is I heard 5th Ed is also going to see a lot of the Spell Plague reversed we may soon have Toril back.

The way I heard they are handling settings is making them alternate versions.  So you'll have "Classic Forgotten Realms" (might not be the name), pre-Spellplague, alongside the Spellplague FR as separate universes now.

The one thing for sure is they are aware people didn't all like the new FR and will be releasing some classic FR stuff this time around.

I'm very curious but also very skeptical of 5e. Advantage/Disadvantage just seems TOO good/TOO bad. You usually shouldn't have disadvantage, but being a small character with a heavy weapon basically isn't remotely worth it. It's become impractical. Advantage just seems like too much of a bonus.

I was curious to see how Barbarian and Paladin make out, since I've only seen the Facebook teasers. They both cap at 2 attacks (where fighter gets 4 or 5, can't remember), so I'm curious as to where they're getting the bonus damage from to make up for the lack of all those attacks. I know Barbarian gets Rage and Brutal Critical, but what about Paladin? Does their "smite" ability (can't remember the name) work more like Pathfinder's Smite Evil? Rangers, I'm guessing, just get their Archery or Dual-wielding combat styles of yore and don't get spiced up too much, but I like Rangers the way they are. I like the changes they got in Pathfinder.

Halflings, despite obviously being my favorite race just seem...too good now. Normally it would take you a few feats to be able to do what Halflings can do at level 1 now. Move through any medium creature's space? Talk about flanking 100% of the time. Rogues seem too good now, too, with the fact you no longer need flanking/advantage to Sneak Attack, just need another ally next to the enemy you're attacking. It really lowers the high risk/high reward style of rogues.

While I like that it caps stats and has a heavier RP focus, I do like "optimizing" within a concept as opposed to powerbuilding. 5E, just like 4E, seems to have taken that all away. It shouldn't be hard to make a "good" character, so newbies who don't know what they're doing aren't punished. But making a great, well-built character should require a good amount of thought and input. The gap between good and great characters is going to be very small, just like 4E.

The game is INCREDIBLY balanced for point-buy, which is great. Powergamers still have the option of rolling for stats, making it easy to cap 1-2 primary stats before level 10 and leaving room for a few feats in their build. I'm of course used to picking up a ton of feats through leveling...but those 2-3 feats can really flesh out a build since they each offer so many bonuses. Durable seems great, for instance, for bulky front-liners and makes me want to play a bulky barbarian tank...Because I've never played a barbarian before...

I am liking what I am seeing, and the cons do not seem nearly as bad as the term 'con' would imply in this case.  <.<  Considering what 4.0 was - I am simply grateful all of this has been done.  Truth be told.


..Ugh. I need to do some more budgeting before I can have my own books. Dammit.

Sincerely,
Arya

What will probably make or break 5e will be the same thing as with 4e - whether they return to the old OGL that encouraged third party use of the system, or the 4e version that basically said "fuck off and go play Pathfinder if you want third party stuff."  The fact that they're already on a new edition also sort of confirms what a lot of people surmised - that they were going to start releasing new editions, just to release new editions, and force everyone to buy all the splatbooks again (which doesn't speak terribly well to the longevity of it).

System wise, from what I've heard I'm still ambivalent.  "Better than 4e" honestly isn't say too much, and while some of it sounds interesting, I dunno.

Splatbook wise, I do like the notion of Greenwood back in charge of FR, but by this point, eh.. I'm sort of burned on the setting.  If CD weren't set there, I wouldn't really have anything to do with FR, nor would I want to set any new servers in that world, were we doing it all over again.

Remember, FW, that 4th ed. came out in 2008. It's been 6 years. It was only 5 years between 4th ed. and 3.5 and three years between 3.0 and 3.5 (granted, 3.0 REALLY needed the touchups). The longest gap in releases was 2nd ed to 3.0 which was 11 years. It didn't go 2 years without an update/revision to mechanics. 1st ed. got updates/revisions all the time while it was out (every few years or multiple releases over those few years).

Their release schedule hasn't really changed that much.

Let's also not forget that 4E damaged the brand to the point where Pathfinder now out-sells Dungeons and Dragons.  If there was ever a time to turn around a new edition with some haste, it was after a large segment of the community rejected 4E.

I actually would love to see Planescape come back.  They might as well do more with that setting, especially if they plan to make tieflings a regular race.  It makes more sense that way, anyway, than making them a regular race in a prime-based setting.

All the same, I suppose we will see whether WotC can recover their original fans or not.

Sincerely,
Arya

In defense of new edition. Never liked D&D... well maybe I did when I was 15, had to know it as RP Games are my hobby and were also part of my work, and I enjoyed few PC games made based on DnD - but whatever they did with it in 4th E made me overlook it - ignore - and erase it from my mind as something that never happened (did the same for 1,2,3rd episode of Star Wars). So it may be to soon, maybe they need money or they want to atone for what they did - either way I am fine with it as it'll be hard to do what they did once again.

And no - don't want to start discussion over how good/amazing/bad/crappy DnD is - it just my opinion of it and it'll not change, I am not thickheaded but I spent a lot of time with it and quite a few other pnp games and this is what I think of it.

Looking forward to 5th.

4E did a lot of damage to it.  Someone pointed out that the giant ballroom at Gencon that always went to D&D, has now been given over to Pathfinder for the past two years.  But it wasn't just the mechanics of the game, and it wasn't even the total reworking of so much of the settings.

No, I think the OGL was what really did in 4th Edition, more than anything else.  Why?

I think back to the days of 2nd Edition, which wasn't a bad system, and not all that different than 3rd.  A little more clunky sure, but anyone familiar with 3rd edition wouldn't find it all that strange.  It was pretty much derided as an old, archaic system, one that none of my friends wanted to play - they'd rather play the WoD d10 system, or the d6 system, or really "Any other core mechanic."  Class/Level?  20 siders?  Psh, that's kid stuff.

Then along came 3rd Edition.  It was derided as a cash grab by the new owners, but you know what?  Within a few years it had completely taken over RPG land.  Everything switched the d20 OGL system.  And why not?  Why not make your rules and material compatible?  It was the system everyone was using, and suddenly, everyone was playing D&D again, or at least buying the rulebooks.  They all already knew the system, and even if you weren't running it, you could easily do a massive kitbash.  It was brilliant, and tons of new companies got into the mix.

Unfortunately some of the higher ups at WoTC decided they weren't getting a big enough share of this action, not realizing that by growing the pie to a more massive scale, it didn't matter that their share was smaller than it would be if they had a stranglehold on the use of the core mechanics.

Now, let me ask you, is anyone else using 4e?  Nope, they're still using Pathfinder/OGL.  If WoTC really wants people to move off that standard, they have to not just make a better game, they have to get everyone using it.  Unfortunately it sounds like they're just going to insist on control again, even if they let third party companies make adventures and splatbooks.

Unfortunately, board or table based RPGs are not very popular. The perfect examples are GW's Necromunda or Mordheim, based on very popular universes, but formally dead today. I was always thinking why WotC would replicate the same mistakes? To be honest, I was very sure that 4th will be the last edition of D&D, but it's nice to know that I were wrong.

Are...are you kidding?  The tabletop RPG market exploded in the last 15 years, and while it's tapered off a little, tabletop is still better-selling and more popular today than it was in the 80s or 90s.  It's not quite mainstream, but it's close:

timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/29/after-40-years-popularity-tabletop-gaming-ri/

GenCon has grown larger than it ever has been.  A lot of people took 4e sluggish sales as a sign of a falling industry because D&D used to be the pack leader, but Pathfider took over that role.

Tabletop is not, and will never be as popular as movies or videogames...it's an enthusiast game type. But not only are they here to stay in the forseeable future, they are quite healthy as a market.

I'm going to have to agree with Kirin on this one - tabletop RPGs seem to be at a bit of a high currently.  I know of more people playing them than every before.  The whole tabletop game market as exploded in general.  I'd like to chalk it up to people wanting more in-person social experiences than multi-player experiences.

Meh, maybe we just have a different definition of tabletop RPG, or maybe I have ill luck for it. I'd agree with your statement about tabletops in general, but most of them are sold as RPG, but lack... roleplay.

I remember back when I was five years old, and my mother introduced me to Dungeons & Dragons (yes, she was that sort).  When she introduced it to me, she told me to be careful about who knew of me playing it, because many in our area thought only devil worshipers played it.  At daycare, a friend of mine and I tried to start a session.  Then, after a small dispute, the principal interrogated us, and really asked more about the game than the dispute.  So, I remember back when it was -taboo- to play the game.  More questions about the game itself and less about little tykes having little tyke problems.  

When I entered college, I met some professors, and some college students, who were into it.  This would be -almost- twenty years after I started playing it.  So...I am afraid I have to say that I do notice more people playing the game than two decades ago. Granted, the Midwest is a -very- special place, as some people here know.

Sincerely,
Arya

They're both quite popular where I live.  There's a large game store that regularly hosts both Pathfinder/4e and more miniatures based stuff as well, Games Workshop stuff, and boardgames (Fantasy Flight, etc).  I used to go every saturday before I started having to work.

I can also safely say that Western New York has a huge gaming community. Tons of 5e stuff starting up and even plenty of 4e stuff still going in the area.

Also, I don't know how anyone goes to the huge conventions. Running a convention with 2000 smelly nerds is more than enough for me

I can also safely say that here in Fayetteville, nightly knife fights out behind the Big Lots store is quite popular among the freaks of night inhabiting my fun little city. makes me look back on how things use to be and I remember the gas station gun fight that took place that ended with an explosion, 4 dead gangers, and a crashed car into a post. Now we moved on to participating and betting on knife fights, and it's pretty fuckin' cool man!

Unfortunately, nowadays if a game (mostly computer games) has the element of improvable character via XP/levels/skill tree/whatnot it is marked as "RPG".

pnp game can't really lack role play, there is non there in the first place, what you get are set of rules, image of a setting. All else depends on the people playing it, you can have as much role play as you want even with D&D. You can use even first ed. of D&D for it, or anything else. You should know how much of a role play focused freak I am Thorien, so even if I had most fun playing around WoD and all the other things, I assure you I did also quite decent things in Cyberpunk with its flat black & white world - talking about rpg I also often refer it as to games of imagination, as that's the only thing that actually limits you and what you want to do with it. For example if you look on Legend of Five Rings there is not much there to 'support' role play, set of rules, some lore - only question is what and how you want to do it. So at the end its you who chose if RPG means Roll Playing Game or Role Playing. 

Wow, I think we talk about different things. My post you quoted refers to TABLETOP games, for example one of my friends called tabletop "Battlestar Galactica" RPG. I totaly agree that all P&P are roleplaying games, even ones focused on annihilating things and character development (My beloved Deathwatch for example.).

Mystic Warden pretty much explained my thoughts.  

I will freaking kill to get the 5.0 alignment rules for paladin put into CE.

Freaking.

Kill.

That honestly sounds a lot more dynamic and robust than "they need to stay lawful good."

Isn't 5E just following 4E's trend of removing all alignment restrictions on paladins?

One thing holding back any tabletop RPG is that getting enough players together can be murder. And I am having trouble keeping the game I am running going.

Yep.

Yes.*

*You can be of any alignment, but you have to swear an Oath which has several roleplaying restrictions (and determines what spells you get).  There are four different oaths to choose from in the player's guide.

So while it's technically possible to start as an evil paladin, following your oath to not fall would eventually shift you away from evil.  The oaths are what determines if you fall or not.

Picked up the PHB, have to admit I like it. I'd been following the playtesting and thought there was some reasonable potential there.



Likes:

• Backgrounds and that this is expandable
• Archetypes - also highly expandable sub-class system
• That you can make up a character without worrying about starting gold, that your combination of choices can generate a base set of gear.
  
  
• That feats are in exchange for ability score increases.
  
• The elimination of a separate save mechanic (Fort, Ref, Will) vs. the appropriate ability score.
  
• That proficiency drives so much.
  
• Rituals - I like that you can use a spell marked as a ritual out of combat without using a spell slot, opens up options for spellcasters to be useful situationally without having to guess ahead or waste a time sensitive rest.

I took a look at the PHB for the first time yesterday and I like what they've done with the classes. Everything seems very thematic to the classes and all the changes are interesting. I particularly like paladins being able to channel their spell slots into their weapon to do bonus radiant damage, as opposed to a crappy Smite Evil ability. HiPS for Rangers is a very RP ability and I like the flavor of it a lot. Other than that, rangers are basically rangers. Wild Magic Surge is by far one of my favorite things. Growing or shrinking several inches? Growing a massive beard of feathers that spray everywhere when you sneeze? Fucking fantastic.

Halflings are overpowered.

Rogues don't need to flank anymore to get sneak attack. Can also sneak attack from a range by hiding behind your buddies. Totally balanced in every way.

Things that amused me:

Barbarians can pick (A) A Greataxe or (B) Any Martial Melee weapon

Wizards, I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but a Greataxe IS a Martial Melee Weapon. I suppose it's just encouraged.

Rangers get A Longbow with 20 arrows.

Gee, thanks. I guess halflings and gnomes will have to ask their DM for permission to not get screwed over by their starting equipment.

I'm in this camp. I loved AD&D back in 1980 but then I was 14. I like what I hear about 5th. I actually have the paperback rules (1 little book with all the rules for like $15) for 4th and despite all the hate showered onto it, it seemed like something I could enjoy. Is there something similar to that so that poor people can enjoy 5th D&D?

I hear you like free things.

dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

I think Fire Wraith hit the big nail on the head. The OGL was a brilliant masterstroke when Wizards introduced it. Suddenly anyone and everyone could publish content for their d20 system and it opened the floodgate to a new world of collaboration. The game was no longer some proprietary rule set, but something that everyone could play with. Sure, the system had its flaws (and every system does), but it was massive and built to last.

4E really did feel like corporates slamming to door on that and seeing a market opportunity to repackage and resell the material (because all the money is made upfront with the core books and tapers off more and more with each new splat blook). Did 3.5 need a massive overhaul? Judging by the success of Pathfinder (often affectionately dubbed 3.75E), it apparently didn't. 4E catered to the MMO crowd and had all the earmarks of a "subscripted" service - involving playaids that were either a painful custom solution or used their online program service (none of this from my experience, but reading of it secondhand).

Now with 5E, the ship may have already sailed. There is a healthy population that jumped over to Paizo's boat. Wizards "needs" 5E to straighten things out again following 4E, but I'm more leery than ever at the often joked about annual updates to the ruleset.

I have a question. How do people roleplay in their tabletop campaigns? Do you narrate your character in third person, or do you go for it in first person?

I have the bad habit of narrating "what my character would do". For instance, I may switch between narration in dialogue.

"What do you want adventurer?"

*Talks over with party who is the best to speak with NPC*

"I feel like my PC would ask this."

"That old cave? Yeah, I know of it."

Then I'd go into first person maybe. I have a really hard time staying in first person when roleplaying, and I blame my horrible accents. Haha. What do tabletop DMs prefer? A party that stays in first person, or a group that narrates their characters omnisciently?

I was playing Mugwort in a Campaign recently, and my answers would always be something like,

"Mugwort would likely do these things" or "My character would say something like this..."

For me, it's a bit of both. It can be very hard to say exactly what your character would say (since you are not this person), so paraphrasing happens a lot. You're also really tempted to make very poor impressions of the accent you think they'd have.

Honestly, I prefer paraphrasing like, "I ask the merchant if he has any information," because it can go a bit faster and players won't be stuck up on phrasing everything the way they think it should be phrased. One of the reasons I actually really enjoy the online RP that CD provides is because I have time to actually think out my reaction and how it can be said. Especially if you play wildly different characters who speak very differently.

If you can do the full acting, great, and I know a few people who do it very well and it's very entertaining to be involved with. But if I play a dwarf, I'm going to be really tempted to use a Dwarven accent and everyone's ears will bleed. It's overall better for my immersion to just paraphrase than to make shitty accents or not "act" the character right.

One thing 4E did very well, I think, was in the DMG it explained all the different types of players that you might run into (probably 5-6 types) and how to make them feel involved in your campaign. If you can balance it well, you can make sure that the actor, the dungeon crawler, and guy with unadulterated bloodlust all feel entertained.

My group mostly sticks to first person if they're doing dialogue (yes often complete with accent), and varies between first and third person if they're describing their actions (sometimes they'll say "I shoot the ogre", sometimes it's "s/he shoots the ogre"; there doesn't really seem to be a constant, even from individual to individual).

I encourage my players to speak in character when conversing among themselves or with NPCs, but it isn't a big deal with less important or non-pivotal dialogue ("I ask if he has any neat magical items in stock"). It's more immersive on the whole. Of course, we have collectively nudged players out of using accents at the table if they're horribly ear-grating.